4.4 Article

Monitoring of EGFR mutations in circulating tumor DNA of non-small cell lung cancer patients treated with EGFR inhibitors

期刊

CANCER CHEMOTHERAPY AND PHARMACOLOGY
卷 87, 期 2, 页码 269-276

出版社

SPRINGER
DOI: 10.1007/s00280-021-04230-4

关键词

ctDNA; EGFR; NSCLC; Liquid biopsy; Erlotinib; Gefitinib

向作者/读者索取更多资源

EGFR mutations in circulating tumor DNA were quantified in 249 plasma samples from 68 NSCLC patients, showing driver mutations increased in copy number several months before disease progression. Quantification of EGFR mutations in plasma ctDNA was predictive of treatment outcomes in NSCLC patients, particularly an increase in driver mutation copy number could predict disease progression.
Purpose We studied EGFR mutations in circulating tumor DNA (ctDNA) and explored their role in predicting the progression-free survival (PFS) of non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) patients treated with erlotinib or gefitinib. Methods The L858R, T790M mutations and exon 19 deletions were quantified in plasma using digital droplet polymerase chain reaction (ddPCR). The dynamics of ctDNA mutations over time and relationships with PFS were explored. Results In total, 249 plasma samples (1-13 per patient) were available from 68 NSCLC patients. The T790M and L858R or exon 19 deletion were found in the ctDNA of 49 and 56% patients, respectively. The median (range) concentration in these samples were 7.3 (5.1-3688.7), 11.7 (5.1-12,393.3) and 27.9 (5.9-2896.7) copies/mL, respectively. Using local polynomial regression, the number of copies of EGFR mutations per mL increased several months prior to progression on standard response evaluation. Conclusion This change was more pronounced for the driver mutations than for the resistance mutations. In conclusion, quantification of EGFR mutations in plasma ctDNA was predictive of treatment outcomes in NSCLC patients. In particular, an increase in driver mutation copy number could predict disease progression.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.4
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据